Why Some of Us Seek Dominant Partners

Are you attracted to a romantic partner who is commanding, powerful, assertive, and take-charge? Or do you prefer someone who is less dominant? Your answer is likely to depend on your gender and your personality. Women may prefer dominant “bad boys” (and some men prefer “bad girls”). Different women have very different reasons for seeking out a dominant partner, as do other women for seeking the opposite.

There are different ways for a person to be dominant, but researchers consider social dominance to include traits like being authoritative, in control, and taking a leadership role.1,2,3 However, such traits are not normally associated with kind, caring people. Dominant people tend to be more self-centered and insensitive to others’ feelings, not traits most of us seek in a romantic partner.4 For dominant individuals to be seen as desirable mates, they need to combine that commanding personality with other traits that show a willingness to be generous and helpful.5 Women want a partner who is competitive with others, but treats them well.6

Evolutionary psychologists claim that women prefer dominant partners because such men have superior genes. Evidence has shown that women prefer more dominant men when they themselves are at the most fertile point of their menstrual cycle, whereas most men do not similarly seek out dominant women.7 (For more on this, click here.)

New research by Gilda Giebel and colleagues goes beyond these evolutionary explanations, which focus solely on gender differences, and examines how our individual personality traits affect the preference for dominant partners.8 The researchers speculated that if a passive but nice partner is seen as “boring," then people who are especially averse to boredom in their lives will be the most likely to seek out dominant partners. They predicted that people who are high in sensation-seeking—"the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences and the willingness to take risks for the sake of such experiences”9—would be especially likely to prefer dominant partners. They also wondered how anxiety, particularly for women, might influence these preferences.

In a survey, 172 German adults (60% female, 63% students) completed personality questionnaires, and then measured their own preference for a dominant partner. Participants rated how much they agreed with statements such as, “A very nice man/woman is often boring"; “I like it when the man/woman takes on a leadership role in our relationship"; and, “I feel attracted to assertive men/women." To assess sensation-seeking, participants completed a well-known measure of this trait, which includes four sub-scales:

Thrill and adventure-seeking. The tendency to engage in “fearless” behavior, like skydiving and mountain-climbing.

Experience seeking. Seeking out less risky, but exciting, new experiences, like travel or artistic experiences.

Boredom susceptibility. The tendency to become bored easily and need constant stimulation from other people or activities.

The results revealed that sensation-seekers of both genders were especially likely to prefer a dominant partner. In particular, boredom susceptibility and disinhibition were correlated with a preference for dominant partners—while thrill-seeking was not. This suggests that those who are easily bored and engage in impulsive behaviors may choose more dominant romantic partners. Such partners may provide excitement that keeps them stimulated.

The researchers also examined participants' overall levels of anxiety. In particular, the researchers hypothesized that women who were highly anxious might prefer dominant partners because of the protection that they offer, rather than because they’re sexy or exciting.

Their results did reveal that there were two types of women who preferred dominant partners—those who displayed boredom susceptibility and disinhibition, and anxiety. These traits are totally uncorrelated to each other, providing evidence that these two types of women may have different motivations for seeking dominant partners. Anxious women appear to prefer dominant partners because they offer protection and security, while disinhibited, easily bored women seem to prefer dominant partners because they’re exciting.

Not all anxious women showed a preference for dominant partners, however. Anxious women were more likely to score highly on the experience-seeking aspect of sensation-seeking, the researchers found, and they concluded that anxious women have two different ways of coping with their anxiety: Some seek a dominant man for protection. But others, particularly those who seek out new and exciting experiences, may try to compensate for their anxiety by pursuing a more sophisticated, cosmopolitan and non-conformist lifestyle that involves new experiences, like travel and artistic pursuits. These women avoid a dominant partner who may try to control them and limit their ability to pursue those experiences. (Of course, there may be other explanations for this surprising pattern of results.)

While there may be some truth, then, to the stereotype that women seek dominant “bad boys," the real picture is complicated—and men certainly may also seek “bad girls” if they themselves are disinhibited and easily bored, just as some women may seek dominant partners if they have that same easily bored personality type. Other women may seek dominant partners because they are anxious and want protection from their mate—although other anxious women prefer the opposite, wanting less-dominant partners who allow them to explore new experiences.

Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D. is an associate professor of psychology at Albright College, who studies relationships and cyberpsychology. Follow her on Twitter for updates about social psychology, relationships, and online behavior. Read more articles by Dr. Seidman on Close Encounters.

One day researchers will laugh at the concept of "superior genes." I look forward to that day. It will mean that researchers are finally looking at the real "evolutionary" reason that "some" people prefer the bad boys.

Women with preference for high narcissistic men's faces (bad boys) gave birth to more offspring whilst controlling for their age, sexual openness (sociosexuality) and self-rated health.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513816300010

Therefore bad boys clearly have superior genes and probably higher testosterone levels. For instance bad boys have higher personality traits such as confidence, dominance, stress resiliance which are all markers of testosterone or good reproductive health, as well as traits that can benefit offpspring resource acquisition ability. So not only do women who have babies with bad boys give birth to more health offsprings, but these offsprings have higher chances at leadership and acquirsing resources in their own lifetime due to daddy's genes.

I am here to tell you that I am aware of this and am actively trying to live the role of both dominator and lover. It is very possible. I see the traits that are needed to take charge and I see the traits in a loving person and I am trying to combine them but it's hard trying to be a Renaissance Man living both sides because they clash in ideals sometimes and I am figuring our how to not only be incredibly kind as to be an example of behavior to men but in the same token show that you are strong enough to take on what ever may come. They must respect you as a warrior and then see you try to live like a poet knowing you're doing your best to provide for those in need. But in any case I believe I am very close to being able to writ down how to conquer yourself. To be all things as best as you can. I think as long as you pursue what is right and stay honest TO YOURSELF that God will be satisfied with our effort.

1. My girlfriend wants me to be dominant in bed. I'm typically a nice, gentle man who believes in women's rights, so these two characteristics do clash when I'm initiating sex: if I'm forceful and dominant, it tends to turn her on, but occasionally it doesn't work and then I feel that I'm disrespecting her by coming on too strongly. It's a weird equilibrium that needs to be found.

2. She's a thrill seeker, and I think she gets bored quickly, which I believe is why she wants exciting sex. But her anxiety is why she wants to be dominated in bed, and not for the reasons expressed in this article. She has an impossible need to control every aspect of her life, whether or not it's within her power to do so, which causes her anxiety. By being dominated in bed, particularly when she's restrained, all of that control is taken away from her, which relieves her anxiety. It's a break for her. From my own experience, this is why women with anxiety prefer dominant partners.

Hey Joshua, as a fellow sub I understand your girlfriend completely. I'd also like to offer you (and anyone in the same position) some advice on how to act dominant while still being kind and gentle - you don't ever have to choose between the two, EVEN when you're roleplaying in the bedroom. My fiance and I role-play and part of what is such a turn on for me is the fact that he IS both dominating AND sweet and gentle, and that doesn't stop even when the whips and chains come out to play lol.

Sometimes you can easily strike a balance by doing two contradictory things at once. For example, my fiance will sometimes be saying dominating 'aggressive' phrases to me while being extremely gentle and light with his touch - a constant reminder that this is just a fantasy, an extremely hot fantasy but he is still the man I completely love and trust, and who loves me completely in return. Also, NEVER forget to have the wind down time afterwards, where you cuddle and talk about what happened and what was really great and what might not have been (if there was anything that didn't go well). Obviously always make sure you know each other's boundaries before you decide to try something new, always have discussions about safewords - really, there's no such thing as being too cautious here, when we weren't roleplaying my fiance used to constantly ask me out of concern if I was really 'sure' about what I liked and things he did. He was terrified he'd try something which I might not like but feel pressured to say 'yes' when we were 'in the moment' - I kept assuring him that I did have my limits and just because I haven't needed to use my safeword yet, doesn't mean I won't use it if I do need to. Took some time to convince him, but I never got impatient or annoyed by the repetitive questions.

A strong man is proactive; for example, he doesn't text with "Is it ok for me to call you tonight?" Instead, he picks up the phone and asks, "Can I take you to dinner Saturday night?" This is sexy, because he's making it clear that he wants to be with me yet he's not being domineering.

A strong yet compassionate man is very attractive. He expresses his thoughts and opinions, but he is also respectful of mine. He makes the moves in the bedroom often, but he's also open to me making the moves.

A strong man works hard and may be ambitious, but he doesn't step on others to get to the top.

I know very few grown women who want to be with a bad boy; they just want to be with a strong yet kind man.

I thought psychology today was better than this. Anyone truly educated in psychology, research, and/or data collection/analysis would see this nonsense (before even checking the references) as a biased puff piece more worthy of cosmopolitan magazine than of psychology today's "journalistic and research-based articles." For shame. This field faces enough stigma and opposition alone, than to deal with and be represented by such biased and "spun" loose interpretations of scientific research. This is why we know the term "pseudoscience" so well. Shame on you. A paycheck and a notch in your resume of being published is not worth embarassing yourself and your entire field. I hope no others follow in your corrupt footsteps

Agreed. I also think this article is poorly written, repetitive and does not read well.
Surely dominance/submissive tendencies have much more to do with an individual's relationship to a parent or parents as a child. Yet that is not mentioned once in this article.
Which seems absurd.
Dominant men and submissive women is an ideal that is popularized through media and film. Women want to be dominated? I don't think so.
Each individual should rise to being an adult and managing their own lives. This is the ultimate responsibility.

Your opinion on the value of this piece as "corrupt pseudoscience" is respected, as all opinions should be.
I presume you are are coming at this from a point of view of someone who understand psychology and hence feels they recognise the deficiencies in such an article when they see one.

If so, can I ask that rather than just stating that this is drivel, you provide us with an explanation of why?
Why do you think this piece is unworthy?
What do you not agree with?
What would you say differently?

Unsubstantiated criticism is useful to no one. But if you are able to provide an educated critique, I'm sure it is something that all of us who have stopped to read this would benefit from.

That's a great point, and definitely valid in nature. I will do my best to follow up with a scientifically substantiated critique, when time allows. Will make a note to feel the motivation to do so. Although I'm not sure why it isn't more obvious...

IMH, the 'study' was extremely limited (172 German adults, 60% female, 63% students, completed personality questionnaires, and *then measured their own preference for a dominant partner*) for any general conclusions to be derived, particularly when the subjects themselves measured their own preference. The conclusions drawn also seem to be a product of testing bias, in that (especially in such a small sample studied) only two conclusions for the cause of dominance preference were found. Statistically speaking, it seems unlikely.

Also, these two conclusions for preference seem to mimic the present conventional theory that dominance is equivalent to narcissism or disordered behavior. In other words, the definition of 'dominance' seems to be presented as a negative attribute, as in the 'bad boy' archetype. I would love to see this study repeated with a much larger sample, and with a more neutral definition of 'dominance', or clarification of what the test subjects consider to be 'dominant' traits.

While I think the article does make valid points, I personally also believe most people seek for someone who's maybe just a little more dominant than themselves. Simply because life's easier that way.

I don't think someone can be called totally dominant/submissive by themselves, but only compared to another person/group. Someone can be dominant with person X and be totally submissive to person Z.

I think it's a power-balance thing, like in wolf packs. Most of us try instinctively to take charge if we feel the others are weaker than us (to ensure the survival of our pack:). If we succeed, it might feel good for our ego, but our life becomes harder.

The same could be valid in romance, it's a mini-pack :P. If your partner is just a little more dominant than you (which ideally means they are a little more competent than you), they will take charge and take care of stuff and you will let them. They will be the ones entering a club first, searching for seats, going and ordering drinks. They are the ones organizing a vacation, the wedding and the household.

Who wouldn't like all of life's tasks handled by someone else? I have a male friend who's totally submissive which drives me crazy, I have to take all little decisions in our relationship, it drains me out. On the other hand, my ex was more dominant/ as dominant as me and it felt totally refreshing to have someone else order the pizza for a change :)

I like a dominant man. My ex partner was more dominant but he was also quite bossy and parent like! I like a man who takes control, doesn't need his nose wiped or constant asks where do you want to go? What do you want to do? Some inactive is actually good. I do not find it threatening. I think with feminisms men find it difficult now to exercise their control. Guys seem more likely to have bossy wives or girlfriends now. Some women will not like or want dominance but it depends what dynamic your mother/father had. Guys who had a strong mother seek more confident assertive women.

Mature Dominant men are INTER-dependent nurturers and caregivers in their interpersonal relationships. They are natural teachers, guides, leaders --in control of themselves in order to be able to control others. They are gentlemen, but not wimpy "gentle" men. Worthy of trust. Confidence is not arrogance, but can be seen as such. They are protective, and willing to share their strength. They are absolutely not threatened by an other's initiative.
Domineering a-holes are bossy, demeaning, often out-of-control of themselves, unfounded braggarts and narcissists. They rule by threats. They prefer to surround themselves with dependent people, but are enraged by them. Often not trusted and inconsistent. They'll throw others "under the bus" to save themselves.

Personally, I am fed up with hearing women say they want a dominant man. After all the abuse and oppression your gender has had to endure for centuries, don't you want to regain some power? I find it sexist for a woman to insist on dominance from a man. And this article is sexist for not talking at all about men who desire a dominant woman. It goes both ways. I am by nature a shy and anxious guy, and the only success I have had, or will ever have, in relationships is when the woman takes charge. I find it overwhelmingly sexy. I love powerful women, and I think that women that are intimidated by the idea of being in charge are still locked into a nineteenth-century mindset, and frankly, are weak. Just as many of them would say about me for being submissive by nature. Sorry, but it's way past time for women to take full charge of their destinies. The glass ceiling will never be broken without liberation in the dating and romance arena as well. You can't just expect to have positions of power in politics and your occupations, without having power in dating and the bedroom too. It's all the same thing.

What I get from this article is that only some personality types like the bad boy archetype, but does that only hold true for the extreme or definitively bad boy group. Did they check for nuances in the data that would suggest that relative dominance is a useful indicator in relationship selection. For instance 75% of women select or prefer men who are more dominant than they are? Just unsure if we should be throwing out the bad boy 'myth' from the data that was shared alone?

The way it's written is very heteronormative. Is the data onlyfrom hetero participants? If so then at least insert the word 'heterosexual' in relevant places to qualify the fact that you're referring to a subset of the population.

I agree that this piece is very heteronormative. It's sad, especially given that PT is far more inclusive that this example. It would have more validity in my opinion if the writer had included a phrase stating that the studies used only heterosexual subjects.

I've just recently wanted to start learning about dominants & subs. I would very much like to learn more about dominants to become one myself sooner than later. I'm single right now but one day I'm hoping to find the right guy who likes being dominated, who likes very kinky things to be done to him. I'd like maybe to one day get into a serious relationship with that guy also.

So I was wondering if dominants have to be a guy?? When I was with my ex, I liked that idea a lot (got excited & kinda tingly just thinking about it), dominating him but he would never agree to the things. So I never looked up / read things about it, I seen toys I would've really liked to have gotten but I didn't.

But now since I've been single for almost a yr I think it's time for me to start reading up on these things, learning as much as possible & slowly build up a collection of toys. That is if a dominant can also be a female. Because the idea of dominating a guy, still excited me & makes me tingly somewhat.

I know this is long but just wanted to explain myself a tiny bit about my question. Thanks in advance for reading my comment & hopefully also answering me.

My marriage has been a blessing until few months ago when my life almost get sucked. A strange woman took my husband's love away from me. He left me and our 3 kids to this lady. I was in shocked because i know my husband still loves me. I tried all i could to get him back but the more i tried the more he went far away from me. All my effort yielded nothing. I was almost giving up and wanted to file for a divorce. I lived in pains for 3 good months without any plan of getting out of this mess till i read a testimony about dr ozama on the internet. a herbal spell doctor who then restore the happiness to my family and my life. His spell worked so fast that I could not even believe it. He's great for as much as I can tell. Am still grateful to him till tomorrow for his spell that helped me with my relationship problems. My husband came back with apologies all for the spell powers of dr ozama. You can contact him on his email for all your relationship or marital problems as well at ozaspelltemple @ gmail. com or whats-app +2348074863591